Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Liz, > > > > Sigh.... Now we have several people complaining because I haven't > > offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the > > complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they > > are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are > > formalized. Is that fair? > > > > The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware > > of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are > > criticizing me because I don't have one? > > > > What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory > > accurately describes reality or not is a much more important > > criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics > > described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its > > current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. > > Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work > informally. > > > > > > > Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if > > there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is > > apparently quite tightly formalized > > The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in > logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where > the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). > > > > > > but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to > > indicate it actually applies to reality at all. > > > > Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no > > consistency with actual reality. > > Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the > maker of the theory). > > The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"? > > > > > > Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality > > Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your > theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, > or "highly non computationalist). > > > > > > because it clearly states that the computations of its computational > > reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real > > processes of nature, whatever they are. > > terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be > defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of > computation, you should (re)defined that term too. > > > > > > > Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated > > assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow > > even if it's doing nothing. > > I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as > non sense many times on this list. > > I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All* > scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for > example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming > arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a > big discovery. > > > > > > > > > A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for > > whatsoever. > > It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. > > > > > Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that > > initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the > > assumption itself isn't. > > > > I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of > > scientific method. > > > I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic > assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. > > > > > > Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is > > its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed > > phenomena. > > It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of > explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear > inconsistent. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
